Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Bardur Arantsson
Please consider that the the way practical development really happens[2]
...among web developers, who of course are the only real developers? Have you considered that there are developers who are not web developers? The past day has convinced me that the web devs have relegated everyone else to fake-non-programmer status and actively want them out of the community because fake programmers don't benefit you real programmers. I had heard that the financial users generally refused to have anything to do with the Haskell community. Now I know why. I wonder how many of them, if any indeed are left after past breaking changes, are in the process of switching to OCaml. I'm sure you consider that a good thing, because they're obviously just holding back "real programmers". -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:05 PM Brandon Allbery
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Bardur Arantsson
wrote: Please consider that the the way practical development really happens[2]
...among web developers, who of course are the only real developers? [...] I had heard that the financial users generally refused to have anything to do with the Haskell community. Now I know why.
I'm curious - do "practical" developers really feel like they have to rush out and update their tool chain whenever a new version of part of it comes out? Most of the projects I've worked on considered the language version as a fixed part of the technology stack, and almost never updated it. Even when using Python, which valued not breaking working code more than it's own zen. But changing anything that potentially affected all the code in a working project was pretty much never done, and always involved a lot of effort. So the worst headache I got from language evolution was from trying to remember which set of features I had available for each project. No, that's second - the biggest one was from arguments about when we should adopt a new version. But breaking working code pretty much didn't happen.

On 10/08/2015 01:39 AM, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:05 PM Brandon Allbery
wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Bardur Arantsson
wrote: Please consider that the the way practical development really happens[2]
...among web developers, who of course are the only real developers? [...] I had heard that the financial users generally refused to have anything to do with the Haskell community. Now I know why.
I'm curious - do "practical" developers really feel like they have to rush out and update their tool chain whenever a new version of part of it comes out? Most of the projects I've worked on considered the language version as a fixed part of the technology stack, and almost never updated it. Even when using Python, which valued not breaking working code more than it's own zen. But changing anything that potentially affected all the code in a working project was pretty much never done, and always involved a lot of effort.
So the worst headache I got from language evolution was from trying to remember which set of features I had available for each project. No, that's second - the biggest one was from arguments about when we should adopt a new version. But breaking working code pretty much didn't happen.
+1, that's an excellent point well made. I have been in this situation and it was certainly frustrating *as a developer*, but it pretty much works for most businesses. Regards,
participants (3)
-
Bardur Arantsson
-
Brandon Allbery
-
Mike Meyer